Norton Ghost v 9.0 .... Is this a true Ghost?

  Michendi 14:00 15 Mar 2005
Locked

Reviews of Norton Ghost v 9.0 are a little confusing. Some reviewers are of the opinion that this is not a true Ghosting utility but simply a fancy Backup utility imitating a Ghost. Other reviewers give it a 2-thumbs up. As one is never sure of the technical competence of reviewers it is difficult to know who to believe.

It would be helpful if technically competent users who have personal experience of Norton Ghost v 9.0 could share their opinions in this forum.

NOTE : A true Ghosting utility duplicates a disk to another equivalent disk creating an accurate mirror-image of the disk. In practical terms this means that - with the exception of the disk identifier - it is irrelevant to the computer whether the system is booted and operated from either disk.

  mattyc_92 15:08 15 Mar 2005

Ghost 9 is basically PowerQuest's drive backup program....

It isn't really Ghost, it just has the appearence of Ghost....

It does backup the whole system, BUT to restore the backup in an emergency, you will need to boot from the Installation disk...

I would stick to Acronis True Image as it is ALOT easier to use, the bootdisks can either be made as 1 bootable CD or 6 floppy disks....

I used to use Ghost, but got error messages, but Acronis is perfect in every way for me... It takes no longer than one hour to backup the WHOLE system (all 7 partitions on my 160 gig drive), and the compression is brilient... Fits the backup onto 2 DVD-RWs (I have used 20gbs in total)...

Ghost used to span it onto 2 dvds for 5 gigs....

  ventanas 15:19 15 Mar 2005

I agree with mattyc_92 True Image is better than Ghost (DriveImage). Much quicker and better compression. Also much easier to use.

  mattyc_92 15:20 15 Mar 2005

DriveImage thats what it is....

Thanks ventanas... This was doing my head in, trying to remember what it is called...lol

  Pine Man 16:18 15 Mar 2005

I use Ghost to back up to a separate hard drive and restoration couldn't be easier. You certainly do not need the installation disk and I have never had any error messages. It may take a little longer than Acronis but I have found it faultless.

  Chegs ® 17:03 15 Mar 2005

I have used DriveImage2002 on XP(create the "rescue floppies")and have never had uncurable problems(cross-linked files,etc)and have been able to load these images into my SATA drives.I have also tried TrueImage,it created the image "in windows" which is not the best way(as files can be "in-use" therefore uncopyable,or the data's changed next time its used)I couldn't get TrueImage to recognise SATA when trying to reinstall the image,only for actual creation.It worked no problem on IDE hdd's,and the very occasional errors in 3rd party apps were sorted by a reinstall,if the error was with XP,then sfc sorted it.If I was still using IDE,then there's little to choose between them.SATA's no problem for DriveImage so its the backup app I use.Almost turns it into a personal choice,get whichevers easiest/cheapest for you. :-)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

See the work of famous artists playing with toys

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment faire une capture d’écran sur un Mac ?